Miller market 'hot'

chop2chip said:
Context matters, I agree. But we could suck just as easily with Heyward. I think there is value in having as many good players under below market contracts regardless of outcome.

We won't get Pollock for just Miller (we probably can't get him in general). But we also didn't just get Miller for Heyward. Jenkins is a pretty good prospect too.
Click to expand...

Yeah but we added in Walden as well. That being said I thought it would just be funny if we moved out Heyward because he was too expensive and decided to trade the player we got for him for another OF who we then would extend for 20+ a year.
 
I just don't see the point in trading 3 years of control for 3 years of control when the team won't compete for 2 of those years.

Again, inconsistent goals during this rebuild. Simmons was traded with an eye towards 2017 or later, so why in the world would they trade Miller for a return that helps the team win now? It just makes no sense.
 
chop2chip said:
Are we choosing to ignore the year of Shelby and three years of cheap Pollock? That undoubtedly factors into the equation.

Besides, Pollock is arguably a better player than Heyward and they are about the same age.
Click to expand...

Pollock is not better than Heyward. He's 2 years older, and much less experienced. Mch of his value is in his offense and he plays in Arizona, Arizona is a very hitter friendly pk, Turner is not. ar
 
zitothebrave said:
Pollock is not better than Heyward. He's 2 years older, and much less experienced. Mch of his value is in his offense and he plays in Arizona, Arizona is a very hitter friendly pk, Turner is not. ar
Click to expand...

Would you agree he's better than Shelby? I'd way rather have Pollock. Hayward Vs. Pollock for the next three years for me is a toss up.
 
Oklahomabrave said:
Would you agree he's better than Shelby? I'd way rather have Pollock. Hayward Vs. Pollock for the next three years for me is a toss up.
Click to expand...

I think there is no question Pollock is better than Shelby. And then when you factor in that hitting in general is more valuable that pitching there is no way they are close to equal value. Remember the Braves traded a pitcher slightly worse than Miller plus a top 50 prospect for Hector Olivera. No way the Braves are getting an all-star CF for Miller straight up.
 
thewupk said:
Yeah but we added in Walden as well. That being said I thought it would just be funny if we moved out Heyward because he was too expensive and decided to trade the player we got for him for another OF who we then would extend for 20+ a year.
Click to expand...

But you are not factoring the 4 years of service time that aren't at 20+ a year vs. losing just the one year of service time of Heyward. That's a sizeable difference.
 
People make me so mad acting like Heyward was going to stay. We got a number 1-2 type of starter (more 2 than anything) for 3+ years and a very good prospect in return for ONE year of the guy. It was a fantastic deal for us.

Simple as that.
 
zitothebrave said:
Pollock is not better than Heyward. He's 2 years older, and much less experienced. Mch of his value is in his offense and he plays in Arizona, Arizona is a very hitter friendly pk, Turner is not. ar
Click to expand...

Pollock gets value from offense, base running, and defense... And he plays a premium position. I would take him over Heyward. As for the home/road thing, he had a 140 wRC on the road - he's good.
 
chop2chip said:
But you are not factoring the 4 years of service time that aren't at 20+ a year vs. losing just the one year of service time of Heyward. That's a sizeable difference.
Click to expand...

It is. But my point is if the Braves aren't doing anything with those discounted years then does it really matter that much? I see no indication that the Braves plan to contend within the next 3 years.
 
thewupk said:
It is. But my point is if the Braves aren't doing anything with those discounted years then does it really matter that much? I see no indication that the Braves plan to contend within the next 3 years.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, why sign Heyward?
 
UNCBlue012 said:
People make me so mad acting like Heyward was going to stay. We got a number 1-2 type of starter (more 2 than anything) for 3+ years and a very good prospect in return for ONE year of the guy. It was a fantastic deal for us.
Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It would have been great if the Braves are using the discounted years of Miller to actually contend which doesn't seem to be the case. And in that perspective it seems like the Braves would have been better served to get prospects for Heyward that may have an impact on when the team contends.
 
thewupk said:
Yeah but we added in Walden as well. That being said I thought it would just be funny if we moved out Heyward because he was too expensive and decided to trade the player we got for him for another OF who we then would extend for 20+ a year.
Click to expand...

There's still no indication that we had any opportunity to re-sign Heyward for 20+ a year in the first place. The reality is that we had a very low chance of retaining Heyward, so even if we trade Miller for another OF who we extend for big money, we still would potentially have one more quality OF than we would have otherwise.
 
chop2chip said:
I don't think that question has to be answered to justify the logic.
Click to expand...

I think it does. But I also think the original plan was to contend in 2017 thus having Miller at a discounted price would help. But that plans seems to have been abandoned.
 
mqt said:
There's still no indication that we had any opportunity to re-sign Heyward for 20+ a year in the first place. The reality is that we had a very low chance of retaining Heyward, so even if we trade Miller for another OF who we extend for big money, we still would potentially have one more quality OF than we would have otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think if the Braves offered Heyward 23 million a year he would of signed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top